Spam Hasn't Changed One Bit For New Law
from the well-that-helped dept
I mentioned yesterday that I hadn’t seen the slightest change in the amount of spam I received since January 1, when the new “CAN SPAM” law went into effect. It appears I’m not the only one. The various spam stoppers all claim that they haven’t seen one bit of difference in the spam they’re blocking. It certainly hasn’t gone down, and they certainly aren’t providing real information on how to opt-out. The only thing I’ve noticed (and this could be a coincidence) is that fewer spam messages have been getting through my filter the last few days. Otherwise, the CAN SPAM law appears to have done absolutely nothing to change the way spammers operate.
Comments on “Spam Hasn't Changed One Bit For New Law”
No Subject Given
And nothing is going to change until the law holds the advertiser and the sender JOINTLY AND SEPARATELY responsible – just like it is in every other publishing medium.
What’s the point in only going after the difficult/impossible to identify person/company sending spam when the primary beneficiary of the mailing, the advertiser, is identified in the message?
And why is this concept so difficult for law makers to understand?
search and destroy
I agree with AC above.
Follow.The.Money.
Find out where the fake Xanax is coming from. How hard can that be? –Track the credit card transfers and the shipper’s waybills … or postage.
Find ’em and fry ’em.
Repeat as necessary.
Re: search and destroy
According to this:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200401/msg00041.html
The advertisers are liable under the law as well.